Registered keeper is a charity

valiant24

I am a Trustee of a Scout Group, which is also a registered charity and which has two minibuses.

On a long trip to a recent charity event the drivers stopped to allow the kids to buy some drinks from a shop.  They couldn't get the buses into the small car park serving the shop, so stopped in a nearby pub, whose car park was empty (it was around 3.15pm on a weekday).

Although the drivers stayed in the vehicles (so unsure about the extent to which they could be said to be "parked") they were there for about 22 mins, and the Scout Group as registered keeper has duly received two PCNs from Euro Car Parks (neither using the correct name of the Group but each matching the details on the V5).

Per Newbies I have submitted a query to the pub's management (it's part of a chain) asking for them to cancel the PCNs.  No reply yet.

I also asked the PPC directly and appealed to its better nature, having had success with this tactic in the past with 1st Parking.  This PPC didn't even read what I wrote though, and rejected the appeal (that I didn't make!).

I have two questions:

1. Since the PPC has already sent me a letter stating that "You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure", is there still value in submitting the recommended response to them using the "TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL THAT DOESN'T SAY WHO WAS DRIVING" template as featured in Post 1 in the Newbies thread?

2. If the answer to 1 is "yes", is there any guidance as to how to adapt it to take account that I am reply on behalf not of an individual, but of a charity of which I am a Trustee?   I looked at the lease/fleet car examples but I wasn't totally clear which best matched our situation. 

Thanks in advance
V

Coupon-mad

No you are at second stage (POPLA) and there are three different issues reported in the POPLA DECISIONS (top thread) in recent months that potentially win.  Use them.

valiant24

Coupon-mad said:

No you are at second stage (POPLA) and there are three different issues reported in the POPLA DECISIONS (top thread) in recent months that potentially win.  Use them.

Thanks for the quick response.
So to be clear, our appeal to POPLA (if the pub chain doesn't cancel/reply) will not be impaired by the fact that my initial response to the PPC did not follow the template suggested?

nopcns

valiant24 said:

So to be clear, our appeal to POPLA (if the pub chain doesn't cancel/reply) will not be impaired by the fact that my initial response to the PPC did not follow the template suggested?

What exactly did you put in your original appeal if you did not use the template? Has the drivers identity been revealed, inadvertently or otherwise?

Coupon-mad

valiant24 said:

Coupon-mad said:

No you are at second stage (POPLA) and there are three different issues reported in the POPLA DECISIONS (top thread) in recent months that potentially win.  Use them.

Thanks for the quick response.
So to be clear, our appeal to POPLA (if the pub chain doesn't cancel/reply) will not be impaired by the fact that my initial response to the PPC did not follow the template suggested?

You may have binned one of the 3 usual ECP appeal points (I told you where to find them), unless you appealed as a company.

valiant24

nopcns said:

What exactly did you put in your original appeal if you did not use the template? Has the drivers identity been revealed, inadvertently or otherwise?

"Hello

I write with reference to your Parking Charge Notices XXX and YYY.

It seems that two of our Scout Leaders stopped in an otherwise-quiet car-park at <location name> in order to let a group of kids travelling to take part in a charitable event buy some drinks during a long journey.  They didn't realise that the area that they were in was a controlled parking site (if indeed they were), and believed that the restrictions related to the nearby pub.  They stopped for a few minutes only, and inconvenienced no-one.  At no times did the drivers leave the minibuses, so I am unclear about the extent to which it could be said that they were "parked".

I haven't yet been to the Site to check the signage, and certainly will do so, but let's assume for now that the PCN is technically correctly issued.  Regardless, we're a tiny local charity and we couldn't possibly afford to pay 2 x £100 in settlement, or anything like it.   So my purpose in writing is to ask you if you will consider withdrawing the PCN in the circumstances?

Thank you and kind regards"

Coupon-mad

OK - you appealed as the company then.

Let us know when you've found the 3 possible ECP appeal reasons.

They are in POPLA DECISIONS (only look at 2023 and 2024 replies there) and the reason I'm advising you to go looking for those 3 points is that we do this in our own time (and we have no idea how far back you need to look, we'd be doing it for you otherwise).  

And you'll be so much better informed & confident, if you have read the wins v ECP for yourself and understand what the POPLA Assessor said and why.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

OK - you appealed as the company then.

Let us know when you've found the 3 possible ECP appeal reasons.

They are in POPLA DECISIONS (only look at 2023 and 2024 replies there) and the reason I'm advising you to go looking for those 3 points is that we do this in our own time (and we have no idea how far back you need to look, we'd be doing it for you otherwise).  

And you'll be so much better informed & confident, if you have read the wins v ECP for yourself and understand what the POPLA Assessor said and why.

The winning appeal point relating to the inadequate size of the text indicating the £100 parking charge started appearing around this time in 2022. I made a note of that page number from the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky Announcement.  So @valiant24, if you go to page 416 and work forwards from there, you should be able to unearth the Decisions that might help you. 

Half_way

Do not Id the driver.

 As for the Pub car park, if they didnt want people to enter then the car park would be closed by chain/barrier or some other means, and not a money grubbing un regulated parking company .

 Propper car park management would ensure that when closed vehicles couldnt enter, and if something did enter then thats a failure of the parking management

But its not about protecting car parks/land or whatever, its all about conning people into paying the parking companies

 The only ducking and diving is from the scum in the parking industry, who are the polar opposite of what Scouts with their oath and law are

valiant24

valiant24 said:

I am a Trustee of a Scout Group, which is also a registered charity and which has two minibuses.

On a long trip to a recent charity event the drivers stopped to allow the kids to buy some drinks from a shop.  They couldn't get the buses into the small car park serving the shop, so stopped in a nearby pub, whose car park was empty (it was around 3.15pm on a weekday).

Although the drivers stayed in the vehicles (so unsure about the extent to which they could be said to be "parked") they were there for about 22 mins, and the Scout Group as registered keeper has duly received two PCNs from Euro Car Parks (neither using the correct name of the Group but each matching the details on the V5).

Per Newbies I have submitted a query to the pub's management (it's part of a chain) asking for them to cancel the PCNs.  No reply yet.

I also asked the PPC directly and appealed to its better nature, having had success with this tactic in the past with 1st Parking.  This PPC didn't even read what I wrote though, and rejected the appeal (that I didn't make!).

I have two questions:

1. Since the PPC has already sent me a letter stating that "You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure", is there still value in submitting the recommended response to them using the "TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL THAT DOESN'T SAY WHO WAS DRIVING" template as featured in Post 1 in the Newbies thread?

2. If the answer to 1 is "yes", is there any guidance as to how to adapt it to take account that I am reply on behalf not of an individual, but of a charity of which I am a Trustee?   I looked at the lease/fleet car examples but I wasn't totally clear which best matched our situation. 

Thanks in advance
V

Update and satisfactory conclusion: a member of the Customer Relations Team at Mitchell and Butlers - owners of Harvester Restaurants - kindly had the PCNs cancelled for us.

Coupon-mad

valiant24 said:

valiant24 said:

I am a Trustee of a Scout Group, which is also a registered charity and which has two minibuses.

On a long trip to a recent charity event the drivers stopped to allow the kids to buy some drinks from a shop.  They couldn't get the buses into the small car park serving the shop, so stopped in a nearby pub, whose car park was empty (it was around 3.15pm on a weekday).

Although the drivers stayed in the vehicles (so unsure about the extent to which they could be said to be "parked") they were there for about 22 mins, and the Scout Group as registered keeper has duly received two PCNs from Euro Car Parks (neither using the correct name of the Group but each matching the details on the V5).

Per Newbies I have submitted a query to the pub's management (it's part of a chain) asking for them to cancel the PCNs.  No reply yet.

I also asked the PPC directly and appealed to its better nature, having had success with this tactic in the past with 1st Parking.  This PPC didn't even read what I wrote though, and rejected the appeal (that I didn't make!).

I have two questions:

1. Since the PPC has already sent me a letter stating that "You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure", is there still value in submitting the recommended response to them using the "TEMPLATE ''ONE SIZE FITS ALL'' FIRST APPEAL THAT DOESN'T SAY WHO WAS DRIVING" template as featured in Post 1 in the Newbies thread?

2. If the answer to 1 is "yes", is there any guidance as to how to adapt it to take account that I am reply on behalf not of an individual, but of a charity of which I am a Trustee?   I looked at the lease/fleet car examples but I wasn't totally clear which best matched our situation. 

Thanks in advance
V

Update and satisfactory conclusion: a member of the Customer Relations Team at Mitchell and Butlers - owners of Harvester Restaurants - kindly had the PCNs cancelled for us.

Brilliant!

I could have sworn this thread featured a post by @Whatever2023 echoing the PPC consumer-blame culture and accusing the OP of 'ducking & diving'.

Clearly Mitchell & Butler understand the meaning of customer relations. If landowners like them stopped using ANPR firms they'd gain so much more repeat custom.

For every victim with the nous to complain about a PPC there are two more who pay and fume, and never return to a retail or hotel site.